Janet Napolitano offers to help to help put stop to illegal border crossings...

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Janet Napolitano offers to help put stop

to illegal border crossings

— in Saudi Arabia

ABU DHABI — The United States government, which has difficulty controlling its own borders, has agreed to help Saudi Arabia secure its dangerous border areas near Yemen.

"It is a very rough border, very difficult to protect from illegal crossings," U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

In late May, Ms. Napolitano met Saudi leaders to discuss a range of security programs, including training, joint exercises, intelligence and arms sales. Officials said both the Americans and Saudis agreed that the Iranian-backed Shi'ite insurgency from Yemen was the leading threat to Riyad.

Officials said Riyad and Washington were expanding cooperation in protecting the kingdom's borders from insurgents and smugglers. They said the biggest threat was the Shi'ite insurgency in neighboring Yemen, which shares a 1,600-kilometer border with Saudi Arabia.

Officials acknowledged that thousands of Yemenis were infiltrating Saudi Arabia despite recent border security measures. They said many of the Yemeni infiltrators were smugglers.

"So many of our discussions were about how to protect a very tough, geological, topographical border from illegal crossings," Ms. Napolitano said during a visit to the Saudi kingdom on May 31.

Officials said Saudi Arabia and the United States were also expanding their intelligence exchange. They said the expansion began during the Yemeni Shi'ite war in southern Saudi Arabia in November 2009, which included the capture of two Saudi towns.

"We all share a concern about terrorist activity emanating from Yemen," Ms. Napolitano said. "Actions of the U.S. in Yemen are with the consent, cooperation of the government of Yemen."

Officials said the U.S. military was modernizing the Saudi Arabian National Guard as well as Interior Ministry security forces. They said Riyad has ordered hundreds of millions of dollars worth of air- and ground-based reconnaissance equipment to monitor the desert border with Yemen.

Another area of consultation has been the Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, which operates in both Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Officials said most of the AQAP leadership was comprised of Saudi nationals.

"The security coordination is very strong with Saudi Arabia," Ms. Napolitano said.

“Guns Is Not the Answer” - Mayor "Moron" Daley of Chicago

 “Guns Is Not the Answer”

Shoot an Armed Home Invader,

Invite the Wrath of Chicago’s Moron Mayor?

Ask any convicted burglar what he fears the most, and he’ll usually name an armed homeowner.

Imagine the following terrifying home invasion scenario:

You live in Chicago’s west side Garfield Park community, a neighborhood in which armed home invasions are “all too frequent,” according to news media.

It’s still dark in the pre-dawn hour of 5:20 a.m. Few people will be awake to hear your pleas for help, let alone do anything to assist you as they slumber.

You’re 80 years old, and now walk with the assistance of a cane. You’re a peaceful Army veteran of the Korean War, respected by your neighbors. You have a wife who also walks with a cane, whom you’d defend with your life.

Suddenly, you hear an intruder at your back door downstairs. The burglar is in his 30s... And he’s armed with a gun.

But fortunately, so are you.

Split seconds seem like hours. So what do you do?

Do you call 911, and hope that you will somehow have time to describe your situation and location to the dispatcher, await the dispatcher’s call to the police and then pray until the officer’s arrival? At which point the armed intruder may ambush the officer, you, your wife or all three?

Or do you defend yourself and exercise both your inherent right to self-defense and your Second Amendment right to bear arms?

Fortunately for the homeowner in question and his wife, he chose the latter.

As a result, an 80-year-old Korean War veteran and his wife live to enjoy many more days together.

In contrast, the armed burglar, a career criminal who discharged his own weapon twice during his assault, provides a vivid example to other potential armed robbers. Namely, that you risk death at the hands of armed homeowners in an America whose Constitution explicitly protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

As one would expect, the vigilant homeowner is a hero in the eyes of neighbors and the Chicago community. Neighbor Shaquite Johnson labeled him a “hero” for defending himself against the now-deceased attacker, noting that there is now “one less criminal” threatening them all. She added, “they don’t bother no one, so why would anyone do that to them?”

Curtis Thompson, another neighbor, commented that, “it’s a good thing they had a gun, or they might be dead.”

Preposterously, however, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley doesn’t see it that way. Of course, he enjoys the protection of armed bodyguards.

Unable to assemble a grammatically coherent statement, let alone an intellectually coherent one, Daley responded to the incident by proclaiming that “guns is not the answer:”

“I understand the situation and I understand. What I’m saying is all of us have to understand that guns is not the answer to problems we see in homes and on the streets of America. It’s just as simple as that.”

Even worse, Mayor Daley refused to say whether the homeowner would be charged under the city’s handgun prohibition. That would be the same handgun prohibition likely to be overturned by the United States Supreme Court within the month.

So tell us, Mayor Daley… If “guns is not the answer” to stopping a potentially murderous pre-dawn armed invader, what is? And tell us, Mayor Daley… If someone calls the local pizza restaurant and 911 at the same time, which is likely to arrive first?

The simple reality is that our nation’s police officers serve admirably and do everything in their power to prevent crime and apprehend transgressors. But unfortunately, as almost any officer will testify, they cannot be everywhere on a moment’s notice.

The elapsed time between the moment an armed invader enters a home and the decisive moment he confronts the homeowner, family member or even terrified pet is typically measured in seconds. It is simply too much to ask police to ensure our collective safety with that sort of efficiency.

Moreover, ask any convicted burglar what he fears the most, and he’ll usually name an armed homeowner.

Although opponents of the Second Amendment dismiss the right to keep and bear arms as an 18th century anachronism, this example from Chicago illustrates once again that it’s as important today as it was then. Korean immigrant shopkeepers who defended their lives and livelihoods against attacking mobs during the 1992 Los Angeles riots provide the same illustration.

No, Mayor Daley – sometimes, guns still are the answer. Thankfully, you’re not the final authority on the matter.

Obama’s New World Order

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23721

Obama’s New World Order

May 31, 2010

By Henry Lamb Saturday, May 29, 2010

It should come as no surprise. During the campaign, he told us he was a “citizen of the world.” Last week, he told the cadets at West Point, and the rest of the world, just what his vision of a new world order is.

Obama wants a new international order that can “resolve the challenges of our times.” That’s what Woodrow Wilson wanted when he and his cronies created the League of Nations. That’s what Franklin Roosevelt wanted when he and his cronies created the United Nations. Fortunately, conservative Senators prevented the United States from surrendering its sovereignty to Wilson’s vision of a New World Order. Roosevelt steamrolled what few conservatives there were in 1945, and the United Nations was created to “resolve the challenges” of his time.

One of the fundamental flaws in the vision of these three globalists – and the New World Order crowd – is the idea that the United States must submit its sovereignty to an ultimate power greater than our own.

Absolutely not, and never!

Veto power for the U.S. in the United Nations Security Council, and to prohibit the U.N. having the authority to levy taxes

In 1945, there was enough conservative influence to retain veto power for the U.S. in the United Nations Security Council, and to prohibit the U.N. having the authority to levy taxes. Both of these provisions have been targeted by the New World Order crowd ever since. The U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance recommends that the veto be removed from all five permanent members, and that the U.N. be given extensive taxing powers.

These two barriers, and the absence of authority to raise its own army, are what prevent the current United Nations from becoming the unchallenged government of the world.

If Obama’s “new international order” is to have the authority and resources it needs to “resolve the challenges of our time,” then it will have to have taxing authority to fund the army that will be required to enforce its mandates, which can be enacted at will without fear of veto from the U.S. or the other permanent members.

The United States must never be subservient to any governmental power on earth, other than the government elected by the citizens of the United States. The United States must never depend upon any other government on earth for its defense, or its welfare. The United States must be responsible for “resolving the challenges of our time.”

The United States should seek and welcome cooperation from all nations in all efforts to resolve challenges of mutual concern, but never in a structure where decisions that may control the behavior of U.S. citizens are made by people who are not elected by U.S. citizens. The United States could find itself in just this situation, should the new global financial regulatory scheme now under development become a reality.

The United States has shown that free people who are allowed to invest time, energy, resources, and ideas into a free market can lift the world to unimagined heights of prosperity and well being. This is the example that the United States should offer the world.

Those nations who wish to follow this example and benefit from its rewards will be excellent trading partners, worthy of support, assistance and cultivation. Those who curse capitalism and seek socialism should be free to follow their own course – so long as their course respects our right to ignore them.

Al Sharpton inadvertently revealed another fundamental flaw in the philosophy of the Wilson-Roosevelt-Obama New World Order Crowd. He said Martin Luther King’s dream was not getting one black family into the white house; his dream was to “…make everything equal in everybody’s house.”

The United Nations reflects this dream in its Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 11(1)) which claims that all people have a right to “…an adequate standard of living…adequate food, clothing, and housing”

Think about it: a government that can declare these rights must have the authority and resources to grant these rights. Neither the United States government, nor the United Nations has any resources that have not first been taken from some of the people. It is the direct, expressed objective of the Wilson-Roosevelt-Obama One World Government crowd to take resources away from the people who have earned them in order to redistribute the resources to those who have not earned them. Only in this way can government “…make everything equal in everybody’s house.”

Voters whose net worth will be improved by wealth redistribution far outnumber voters whose wealth will be taken. The Obama-led Democratic majority in Washington has the votes necessary to take the wealth from those who have earned it in order to “…make everything equal in everybody’s house” and they are doing it as rapidly as possible.

Obama’s “New International Order” goes beyond the United States

Obama’s “New International Order” goes beyond the United States, and seeks to take the wealth of the United States and redistribute it to the rest of the world. He seems perfectly willing to make everything equal in every nation – until your wealth is gone.

The United States should show the rest of the world how to earn prosperity through free-market capitalism, and thereby help the other nations of the world elevate their wealth to equal ours. Obama and his crowd choose instead, to equalize the wealth of nations by draining America’s wealth, and reducing Americans’ wealth to the lowest possible common denominator.

The Wilson-Roosevelt , and now Obama’s vision of a New World Order must be rejected, along with all those politicians who share it.